They're completely, completely different lenses whose differences encompass more than just image quality. One is designed for close focusing and sharp, distortion-free images; the other is designed for low-contrast lighting, portraiture, and low-light photography. You may as well be comparing a 600mm f/4 against a 14-24/2.8 zoom and asking which one is "better."

Yes, both the 100/2 MP and the EF 85/1.2L II can be used for all the things that you mentioned. But that says nothing about which one will be more useful to you for the specific shooting conditions you have in mind, or the desired result you want to achieve. You say nothing about what aspects of performance are important to you. Is maximum sharpness necessary? Is close focusing necessary? How fast an aperture do you need? Do you require autofocus? It's not anyone else's place to suggest to you which one of these lenses you should buy when you don't even supply this bare minimum amount of explanation. Anyone who looks at your post and gives you a suggestion is basically just giving you their biased opinion, completely meaningless and irrelevant to what you will actually prefer, because you haven't provided any insight as to what you are looking for in a lens.

And by the time you do finally discuss what you want out of a lens, you should already know the answer to your question, without having to ask anyone else.

Both can do both. You really need to look at lots and lots of photos to decide. Flip through the ZF/ZE/ZM thread, and maybe have a look at a few hundred shots on Flickr. My take is that if you don't need f/1.2 for night shots, or the super narrow DoF at portrait distance or the AF, or if you want the close focus, get the 100 MP. Otherwise get the 85L.

Have been looking at photos as much as possible.
For portraitures I favor the 85. For landscapes I am undecided.
I saw a terrific all purpose gallery on the 85 by Morten Byskov
on smugmug. Anyone interested in an 85F1.2 II should see his gallery.
It is first rate and shows the versatility of the lens.

Glad you took a look at Byskov's gallery. Most 85 pics I see are portraits.
Never saw such diversity with this lens. Most of the pics are with fast settings.
With f1.2 night and inside are very doable. Problem is that many a pic would require
the feet for good composition. But; how would the Zeiss 100 compare? That is what I need to know.

Glad you took a look at Byskov's gallery. Most 85 pics I see are portraits.
Never saw such diversity with this lens. Most of the pics are with fast settings.
With f1.2 night and inside are very doable. Problem is that many a pic would require
the feet for good composition. But; how would the Zeiss 100 compare? That is what I need to know.

It's impossible to answer "how would the Zeiss 100 compare" when you gonna use the lens for everything. I own both lenses and for some kind of photography the Canon is better. For other kinds the Zeiss is better. You really can't buy one lens for everything

The 100 MP is sharp wide open and great up close and far away. The 85L II is maybe my favorite AF lens... it's special and anyone that owns one and has used it will tell you the same. You need to decide what you are going to be using it for... as for me the 85L is my choice for paid work, and I wouldn't want to use the 100MP as the results may actually be so sharp as to be unflattering! This can happen with the 85L as well, but the Canon was really made to be a people shooter. It is just a great conciliation that it is also very good stopped down. The look of the images both lenses produce are VERY different. Decide what look you want, and buy.

I would buy the 85L if I were to use it professionally, center focus is quite reliable and if you shoot in street with this long lens AF is handy. Also f1.2 is quite an advantage. I used them both on a crop sensor with standard focusing screen, the 100 macro was a challenge. Now I have bought the 85L again, this time in FD version - the prices are so low, could not resist.

Most reviews put the Sigma 85/1.4 at least as nice as the 85L in everything except for color and the 1.2 aperture, and the 100 Macro 2.8 isn't a Zeiss but it's easily one of Canon's top 5 lenses right now.

Do you buy one ~2K lens that does what it does superbly, or do you buy several lenses to cover everything admirably. That's for the OP to decide. If all you're going to do is studio portraits I'd tell you to get a 28-135. I've personally used all four of the lenses mentioned and found them all well above what clients cared about.

Sp12 wrote:
Most reviews put the Sigma 85/1.4 at least as nice as the 85L in everything except for color and the 1.2 aperture, and the 100 Macro 2.8 isn't a Zeiss but it's easily one of Canon's top 5 lenses right now.

Do you buy one ~2K lens that does what it does superbly, or do you buy several lenses to cover everything admirably. That's for the OP to decide. If all you're going to do is studio portraits I'd tell you to get a 28-135. I've personally used all four of the lenses mentioned and found them all well above what clients cared about....Show more →

Both those lenses are nice. But both are less good than the Zeiss 100 & Canon 85.
And the Canon macro 100/2,8 is nice. But it's not even close to be among Canons top 5 lenses. Or top 10 either

I'd go with the MP, just because it's a more versatile lens (and the L manually focuses by wire- blech). But, if you're not doing macro and the MFD of the 85L doesn't bother you, why not consider an adapted C/Y 100/2 Planar? It's nearly half the price of the MP and every bit the short telephoto.